Yes clearly if we raise minimum wage it will destroy jobs. Never mind the fact that jobs haven't vanished in the past when minimum wage was raised. THIS time it will be different. That's your prediction. Never mind your extensive track record of failed predictions, THIS time you'll be right!

Nothing he is saying about student loans jibes with all his supply side shit he lead with. Then he goes on to make statements long since reported on Politifact to be lies that were repeated with hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising and Obama still won reelection. WTF - ? Get a new shtick.

I'm talking about your "it's not a military, it's a social experiment" comment. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding the rest of the stuff about gay troops' dating partners getting benefits.

Desegregation was different, black/hispanic/asian men were not held to a lower standard than the white man, in fact it was very much the other way around, they are bigots. The current situation is however different, because we are lowering standards in the name of "fairness" ....

The military's job is to strike faster and hit harder than everyone else am I right?

So why did we drop basic standards in order to let women into combat arms??? Would you rely on Miss 19 push up's and 20 min/mile run time to cover your 6 and drag your ass out after your legs get fucked up??

WELL WOULD YOU?? Neither will any of the males she winds up working with.

Like I said...it's a social exp. it has nothing to do with creating the meanest fighting force on Earth. Otherwise they would have opened the doors and said "Ladies you need to do 77 push up's, 86 sit ups, 15 pull ups, run 2 miles in 13 min and a 12 mi road march in full battle rattle in 2 hrs or less...btw there will be a scored shoot qualification at the end of that march and if you don't hit 36/40 moving targets with 40 rounds you can go back to your desk job with all the other sub standard pond scum." Because THAT would be fair...THAT would be equal...and THAT would have been in the best interest of improving our fighting forces.

Do I need to link the military PFT standards for Men v. Women AGAIN?

Let's just be honest merc...not you nor anyone on the left is genuinely interested in fairness or equality, you just want to look good when you say "I support substandard women in combat b/c that's fair, look how much I love women!!"

Apparently gay bf's/Gf's are now getting spousal benefits that straight folks have to be married to get......because it's fair.

Desegregation was different, black/hispanic/asian men were not held to a lower standard than the white man, in fact it was very much the other way around, they are bigots. The current situation is however different, because we are lowering standards in the name of "fairness" ....

The military's job is to strike faster and hit harder than everyone else am I right?

So why did we drop basic standards in order to let women into combat arms??? Would you rely on Miss 19 push up's and 20 min/mile run time to cover your 6 and drag your ass out after your legs get fucked up??

WELL WOULD YOU?? Neither will any of the males she winds up working with.

Like I said...it's a social exp. it has nothing to do with creating the meanest fighting force on Earth. Otherwise they would have opened the doors and said "Ladies you need to do 77 push up's, 86 sit ups, 15 pull ups, run 2 miles in 13 min and a 12 mi road march in full battle rattle in 2 hrs or less...btw there will be a scored shoot qualification at the end of that march and if you don't hit 36/40 moving targets with 40 rounds you can go back to your desk job with all the other sub standard pond scum." Because THAT would be fair...THAT would be equal...and THAT would have been in the best interest of improving our fighting forces.

Do I need to link the military PFT standards for Men v. Women AGAIN?

Let's just be honest merc...not you nor anyone on the left is genuinely interested in fairness or equality, you just want to look good when you say "I support substandard women in combat b/c that's fair, look how much I love women!!"

Apparently gay bf's/Gf's are now getting spousal benefits that straight folks have to be married to get......because it's fair.

Are gay men held to a different standard? Or are we talking about the women in combat thing now? And I'm not seeing anywhere where it says gay people's dating partners get benefits.

Nothing he is saying about student loans jibes with all his supply side shit he lead with. Then he goes on to make statements long since reported on Politifact to be lies that were repeated with hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising and Obama still won reelection. WTF - ? Get a new shtick.

Plus he looks like a deer in the headlights!

glug-glug-glug

Yeah I thought he was flat as well. I don't think these rebuttals are very important but he just looked off.

Desegregation was different, black/hispanic/asian men were not held to a lower standard than the white man, in fact it was very much the other way around, they are bigots. The current situation is however different, because we are lowering standards in the name of "fairness" ....

The military's job is to strike faster and hit harder than everyone else am I right?

So why did we drop basic standards in order to let women into combat arms??? Would you rely on Miss 19 push up's and 20 min/mile run time to cover your 6 and drag your ass out after your legs get fucked up??

WELL WOULD YOU?? Neither will any of the males she winds up working with.

Like I said...it's a social exp. it has nothing to do with creating the meanest fighting force on Earth. Otherwise they would have opened the doors and said "Ladies you need to do 77 push up's, 86 sit ups, 15 pull ups, run 2 miles in 13 min and a 12 mi road march in full battle rattle in 2 hrs or less...btw there will be a scored shoot qualification at the end of that march and if you don't hit 36/40 moving targets with 40 rounds you can go back to your desk job with all the other sub standard pond scum." Because THAT would be fair...THAT would be equal...and THAT would have been in the best interest of improving our fighting forces.

Do I need to link the military PFT standards for Men v. Women AGAIN?

Let's just be honest merc...not you nor anyone on the left is genuinely interested in fairness or equality, you just want to look good when you say "I support substandard women in combat b/c that's fair, look how much I love women!!"

Apparently gay bf's/Gf's are now getting spousal benefits that straight folks have to be married to get......because it's fair.

I agree with you on women in combat and will take it one more step. Let women who meet the same standards as men go through the exact same training WITH men, as in live with them, shower with them, shit with them, eat with them and train alongside them step for step. If we want men and women to trust each other in combat, then that's the way to do it.

As for spousal benefits for unmarried gays, I will agree with you there too as soon as the 41 states that don't allow gay marriage change their tune. How can you expect gays to get married in order to get their benefits if they simply can't GET married? That truly is a non-level playing field and needs to be fixed.

__________________It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain

Are gay men held to a different standard? Or are we talking about the women in combat thing now? And I'm not seeing anywhere where it says gay people's dating partners get benefits.

At what time or date are you saying the military lost its readiness?

No...gay men are not. Maybe a lie then idk but if it were true it's fucking bullshit. It lost no readiness, it lost effectiveness when it lowered it's standards. Lower standards = less effective force...you will NEVER win an argument against that. Let shit in you get shit results....it's a fuckin' fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigh

I agree with you on women in combat and will take it one more step. Let women who meet the same standards as men go through the exact same training WITH men, as in live with them, shower with them, shit with them, eat with them and train alongside them step for step. If we want men and women to trust each other in combat, then that's the way to do it.

As for spousal benefits for unmarried gays, I will agree with you there too as soon as the 41 states that don't allow gay marriage change their tune. How can you expect gays to get married in order to get their benefits if they simply can't GET married? That truly is a non-level playing field and needs to be fixed.

Women in combat: Right the fuck on....if she's going to have to do it in combat, better do it in training, it's 1 team...1 standard and that standard is what gives our "elite" fighting forces that elite title, deal or gtfo. *fist bump*

I know...I agree with you too on the gay spouses, and totally support gay rights. But the military should NOT be in the business of dealing with societal/civil/family policy/legislation. That to me is simply way the fuck to dangerous of a path to even allow the slightest interaction. I'm sorry but the gay community is going to have to take some more buuu shit..and get enough people pissed off about gay soldiers spouses being denied the right to bury their partner or w/e to force change on our civil laws. It sucks and will take time...but letting the military get in on this? maaaaaaaaaaaan I'm not so sure that's really a good idea. I think they need to stick to the books and dot their I's and cross their T's...."Sorry...I need a marriage certificate or you can't be considered a spouse or receive spousal benefits." the change needs to come from the civilian side, not the military...Just my 2c.

*snicker*.....I supposed that's why the entirety of the GOP would give their left nuts/ovaries to boot Obama and stick Clinton back in the WH

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo

No, the reason for that would be his color.

No, wait, there's one more: Clinton both endorsed and signed the incredibly cynical and social-reactionary Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama has kindasorta, with some prompting from Biden, positioned himself against.

Now, I hope no good Litster would prefer Clinton to Obama based on that!

But it should rationally respond to it, and traditionally has. The armed forces were racially integrated long before the rest of American society was. It never detracted from their fighting-capacity.

Respond to it? They repealed don't ask don't tell....which means gay soldiers can't be fired for being gay, win. That doesn't have shit to do with giving bf/gf of gay soldiers spousal privilege and benefits.

Why in the mother fuck do you left wing morons keep bringing up desegregation?

We aren't talking about desegregation anywhere in this mother fucker.....

Lowering standards to allow women in in the name of "fairness" and gay bf's/gf's getting spousal benefits that straight people have to marry for.

Admit they are fucking retarded, unfair and a prime example of the left wing taking things to a bullshit level or make an argument in favor of lowering standards and providing special treatment for certain people based on their sexual preferences.

I wanna live in Botany's world where there are enough mortals capable of meeting his standards to fill our military. Most men in the Marines don't come close to making his standards or at least never did under any recent standards. His standards are both superhuman. If they did every one of them would be worth hundreds of any other military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoryN

Can I love you? I want to love you and bear your children and perhaps make certain your wisdom is preserved.

__________________
"Ask not the sparrow how the eagle soars"
~Kiryuin Satsuki

I wanna live in Botany's world where there are enough mortals capable of meeting his standards to fill our military. Most men in the Marines don't come close to making his standards or at least never did under any recent standards. His standards are both superhuman. If they did every one of them would be worth hundreds of any other military.

Standard PFT scores bro...most men aren't in combat arms either. And the 12 miler? I don't know a leg/air unit in the army that doesn't do at least one of those every week. You can always spot noobs by the huge blood stains on the side of their jungles around the ankles...usually takes a couple months to get the feet really broken in. Recorded test/shoots are usually quarterly, monthly if you made your way into a well funded high speed unit.

Sure...male minimum is less than what I listed (42, the female max score), but show up to an Infantry/Combat Engineer/Arty unit doing the bare minimum and see what happens or how far your military career will go.

NCO without 90+% on a PT test? Not in your wildest fucking dreams...Jr.Enlisted 4EVA!!! No schools will take you....no team will want you....you will be XO/1SG's coffee bitch. Life as a soldier barely making it in a combat unit will suck such huge cheesy boar cock they will find that poor bastard hanging in a barracks shower.

No...gay men are not. Maybe a lie then idk but if it were true it's fucking bullshit. It lost no readiness, it lost effectiveness when it lowered it's standards. Lower standards = less effective force...you will NEVER win an argument against that. Let shit in you get shit results....it's a fuckin' fact.

Did they create a separate women's infantry standard that I missed? Also where is this thing about gay people's boyfriends getting benefits? Link?

If two women are in a lifelong committed relationship complete with a wedding but their state refuses to acknowledge the wedding, what's the harm in allowing benefits? Many private companies have been doing that for a while now and I doubt it's caused them to lose their competitive edge.